A sincere question about the one new man and covenants made with Israel

This is an honest question. I've often heard that if the millennium exists and Israel has a place of headship among the nations that this is buidling again a wall of partition again between Jew and Gentile. How so is my question? It's said that it would not be fair for God to exalt the Jewish nation over other nations after God made Jew and Gentile one in Christ with equal access to the Father. How would this "exaltation" of Israel being over the nations perhaps be lording it over other people and nations and building dividing walls again? I believe the scriptures portray just the opposite but I'm asking for answers from those who believe it would be building dividing walls again. What is your reasoning for this?

11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision” by the so-called "Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands””

12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,

15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near;

18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household,

20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,

21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,

22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:14-22 - NASB)

Part of my question and thoughts are, have Gentiles forgotten that when they became believers in Christ and part of the commonwealth of Israel (true Israel within Israel) that they were then participating in promises and covenants made to the Jewish commonwealth? How would Christ returning to earth and ruling the nations from Jerusalem during a millennium nullify the one new man He created in Himself? Foreigners and strangers have always been allowed to join Israel since OT times and scripture states it will be so during what I believe will be the millennium. But the bottom line is, if Israel becomes a servant head to the nations following the example of the Messiah they will then believe in how will this be creating new walls of division and destroying the one new man? The whole earth will be able to partake of Israel's blessing in that day so how will the Gentiles be shortchanged and placed back in a position of supposed inferiority? I don't see it as so because the whole foundation is a covenant made with the Jews to begin with.

I'm not interested in if or maybe the millennium will actually exist. I believe it will. I'm not interested in the debate whether the thousand years of Revelation is symbolic or not. My question is, if the millennium will indeed exist then how would that be setting up walls of partition again and nullifying the one new man in Christ? I don't buy that it will because there is no unrighteousness in God. The restoration of the remnant of the natural branches, in Christ and within specified geographical borders, is portrayed as an event that will be life from the dead whose blessings stagger the imagination even now and was part of the orginal promises and covenants made to Israel. It's what the Gentiles signed in to when they became part of the commonwealth of true Israel by faith. How could this restoration of the natural branches in Christ be building walls again?

Comments welcome but if you want to be contentious please give it a rest and just forego. Sound, reasoned and well thought out replies are welcome. Remember we are going to spend eternity with one another. I've failed in the past but there's no need to go at each other. It's possible to talk and dialogue decently and with respect. The faith we have works by love.

Hi Docs,

I just recieved this week : "My Beloved Israel by Steve Yoder, excelent book, I would highly recomend it to everyone. It is recomended by David Bercot an expert on early church history.

'Steve Yoder. In this well-researched book, Yoder discusses the Old and New Testament prophecies about Israel. He sets forth and defends the prophetic view held by the early Christians, the Anabaptists, the Reformers, and in fact all Christians before the 19th century. He describes the persecution of the Jewish people by "Christian” governments and their inhuman treatment by Hitler. He also explains the history of the Zionist movement that led to the creation of the modern state of Israel. He argues that there is only one Israel of God””comprised of both Jews and Gentiles who are children of Abraham through their faith in Christ.'

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/product3404.html

I will discuss this more later but got to go to work now

The Idea that the physical nation of Israel has a place of headship among the nations in the future is a view that was not held by most of the early Christians, the Anabaptists, the Reformers, and in fact most Christians before the 19th century.

Darby through Scolfield the same stream that popularized the pretrib rapture is the same stream that has popularized the idea of : "physical nation of Israel has a place of headship among the nations in the future "

Jesus said of the leaders of Nation of Israel in his day: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”

Whom is this nation that the Kingdom is given to ? Peter tells Us : But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people;.....

Yoder writes on p.22 : "He (Jesus) always condemned them and their system and as far as we know He never regressed on His actions in any way...."

Lets remember the Bible clearly says that God is not a respecter of persons.
The idea that the physical nation of Israel (because of the race of there flesh) has a place of headship among the nations in the future is a view that goes against the understanding that God is not a respecter of persons as well as Pauls arguement in Romans 9-11 that clearly makes the point that : 'They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

Who are the children of the promise ? : Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

to be continued

RE: /// but I'm asking for answers from those who believe it would be building dividing walls again. What is your reasoning for this?///

Racism is done away with in the Body of Christ :

'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.'

'Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all. '

'For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.'

' Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

to be continued

Amen proudpapa.

RE: ///Part of my question and thoughts are, have Gentiles forgotten that when they became believers in Christ and part of the commonwealth of Israel (true Israel within Israel) that they were then participating in promises and covenants made to the Jewish commonwealth?///

Physical Israels role as the commonwealth was done away with.

"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”

We have a 'better covenant, (an everlasting covenant) which was established upon better promises.'

David-

I am afraid if you can't find people here who agree with your premise, you won't get the discussion you are looking for.

The verses from Ephesians you quoted indicate that all believers comprise the holy temple and God's dwelling place, so I am wondering if you believe that temple worship will be reinstated in the literal millennium you think is forthcoming.

I can tell you that years ago when I believed in a literal millennium etc that the idea of reinstituted temple worship with animal sacrifices to boot really bugged me.

Actually I'm looking for those who may disagree with me as I'm trying to understand better the foundational reasons as to why they disagree. Particularly why if Israel became the head of the nations why this is somehow erecting a wall of partition again and disrupting the one new man. Yes the commonwealth of Israel is now the spiritual seed of Abraham who believe in Christ but believing Gentiles became part of the covenants made with this believing Israel. So why now are some of the promises made to Abraham supposedly no longer valid because there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ. These promises are part of what Gentiles signed in to.

The temple controversy, and controversial it is, is secondary to my question of why a regenerated and restored Israel becoming a priestly servant nation and washing the feet of the nations would be a disruption of the one new man.

I may be a bit getting back to you in more depth but I will try soon. I have read your comments and will again. I may get that book "My Beloved Israel" you have spoken of. I might do that soon.

Yu said Yoder has written,

"He argues that there is only one Israel of God””comprised of both Jews and Gentiles who are children of Abraham through their faith in Christ."

I believe that also. Yet if Israel, emptied of nationalistic self conceit and reliance on their own strength versus God's, and redeemed in Christ, became a servant to the nations under the headship of Christ then how is this destroying the one new man? If one member of this one new man (bless God for this man!)is honored then aren't all members honored? If one member is honored shouldn't all memebers rejoice? I spoke once to a felow Christian about what I believed would be Israel's future as a redeeemd nation and he said that can't happen because there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ. That is what I don't understand.

Thanks to the others also who have responded.

RE: ///I may be a bit getting back to you in more depth but I will try soon///

I look forward to your thoughts and getting a better understanding of your position.

David- how do you know that when God made his promise to Abraham that he (God) didn't have the Church ultimately in mind?

TMK: David- how do you know that when God made his promise to Abraham that he (God) didn't have the Church ultimately in mind?

Docs: I do believe that. The Abrahamic promises are only obtainable through Christ.

26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

28 You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God (Ezekiel 36:26-27)

If God puts His Spirit within them then they will be part of the Church because the Church is the only entity on earth that has the Spirit dwell within each individual member. To have the Spirit within they will have had to place their faith in Christ. I believe God had this in mind when He first spoke to Abraham. If this is true why isn't the "You will live on the land that I gave to your forefathers" also true? How would living on this land, in Christ and with the Spirit within, be erecting a wall of partition again between Jew and Gentile since the blessings coming from this would fill the whole earth?

Thanks.

Docs,
Am I understanding you correctly ? are you of the understanding that verse 26 and 27 of Ezekiel chapter 36 is fulfilled through Christ in this present dispensation but believe that there is a dispensational gap between versus 27 and 28, In which verse 28 : "You will live on the land that I gave to your forefathers" will not be fulfilled untill the millennial dispensation ?

Could it be possible that there is not a Gap and that versus 26-28 where all fullfilled at the same time ?

Could that be what these versus are referring to ? :

But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels Heb 12:22

Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27For it is written, Rejoice, [thou] barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. Gal 4

add : Or are you of the impression that 26-28 is only addressing physical Israel in the millennial dispensation ?

Thanks proudpapa again for your thoughts. I just don't have much time tonight but heck, replies don't always have to come immediately. It's fun and perhaps wise to muse a bit and let things percolate you know before answering.

One short thought.

You quoted,

"Jesus said of the leaders of Nation of Israel in his day: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

Did that mean He was forever through with them though? He also said,

37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!

39 For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me UNTIL you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’” (Matt 23:37-39 - NASB)

There is a strong implication of a day and time to come when they will say of Christ, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." After the UNTIL.

What difference will it make when Christ returns to Isarel and Jersualme from whence He ascended" Where do you believe Christ will return to? It's He that promised to return to the place and nation He left. Will this have any significance for Israel and set them apart in any way? If Christ returns to Israel will this be showing respect of persons and partiality?

Blessings. I'll get back at you.

Docs, You have me searching the Scriptures.

RE: ///It's He that promised to return to the place and nation He left.///

Could you give the Scriptures that you are referring to ?

ACTS 1:6-7.
"Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
"And He (JESUS)said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority."

I find this very interesting question and answer. The disciples who had been with Jesus every day for 3.5 years still seemed to have the understanding that the Kingdom would at some point be restored to Israel. You would have thought that if this major prophetic plan that was the foundation of the Jewish nation for years had been changed then Jesus would have made that very clear to them during those years. Even more, here was the ideal opportunity for Jesus to correct their thinking about it, but instead He just says in essence, 'It's not for you to know when this will happen'.

Clearly, if you or I were one of those Jewish disciples there on that day, we would have not taken it any other way than He meant it WOULD happen sometime in God's timing!

Where did Jesus ever state that all those many, many prophecies in the OT that speak clearly of a future earthy Kingdom of Israel were now redundant? I don't know anywhere.

It seems to me that if God spoke in times past and said that certain things would come to pass and they don't, it is a slur on God's integrity. He would be saying in effect 'I've changed my mind' or 'well, it did not quite work out as I said it would'. I don't believe this is right.

Regarding the early church, it is incorrect to say they did not believe in a millennium kingdom on earth. The early Church Fathers did believe in a millennium Kingdom. This view only changed later when the church had drifted away from it's roots. The accepted view of the pre-nicene church fathers was pre-millennial.
For example: Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) in his Dialogue With Trypho c. AD 140, made the following premillennial statement: "But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then he built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare."

and also this.... "And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue, chapter 81).

Irenaeus (AD160-230) was a disciple of Polycarp who knew the Apostle John said "John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the first 'resurrection of the just,' and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth, and what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonize [with his vision]." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, chapter 36, paragraph 3).

ACTS 1:6-7.
"Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
"And He (JESUS)said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority."

The question is not being asked in Acts 1.
Luke is simply recalling how the question was asked of Jesus in the past. The context is that it is part of Lukes introduction for what is fixing to take place in chapter 2

Wesley's Notes for Acts 1:6
1:6 Dost thou at this time - At the time thou now speakest of? not many days hence? restore the kingdom to Israel? - They still seemed to dream of an outward, temporal kingdom, in which the Jews should have dominion over all nations. It seems they came in a body, having before concerted the design, to ask when this kingdom would come.

People's Bible Notes for Acts 1:6
Ac 1:6 Wilt thou at this time, etc.? They still held to their old ideas of a worldly restoration of the kingdom of Israel. Their only question was, "Wilt thou restore it 'now'"? After the Holy Spirit was given, this delusion was dismissed, and they understood that Christ's kingdom is not of this world.

Add : Did any one write that there where no millennialist before the 19th century ? I do not believe I wrote that because that was not my understanding.

Proudpapa, you gave me the impression that you were making a case that ' most early christians did not believe in an earthly kingdom for Isreal' and that it was just a recent thing. I showed this was not the case. The reformers, Anabaptist, etc, were not early Christians, certainly when compared to the pre-nicene church Fathers. They are 1200 years after them!

Julias, Why does it have to be either, or? Plan A or plan B? Why can't it be both?

Proudpapa,

With respect, you are mistaken in your reading of Acts 2. It certainly was a conversation that took place at the time just before Jesus ascended to heaven. Read verse 9 "Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up and a cloud received Him out of their sight" .

It cannot be more clear in telling us when these things were spoken! :)

I am currently in a place of transition from my previously held position of historic premillennialism to that of a NonChiliast position.
Having formally held a historic premillennialist view I was of the understanding that the pre-nicene church Fathers where chiliast but much different in there understanding from Darby Dispensationalism that is widely held today.

The foundation of Darby Dispensationalism is the role of physical Israel in Prophecy.
My understanding thus far is that that view was not held by most of the early Christians, the Anabaptists, the Reformers, and in fact most Christians before the 19th century. That seems to be the understanding of Bercot who has dedicated years of studing the pre-nicene church Fathers in there context.

I want to get this download : What the Early Christians Believed About Israel in Prophecy.
http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/product2814.html

edit add : RE: /// It certainly was a conversation that took place at the time just before Jesus ascended to heaven.///

I was not trying to refute that.
I was pointing out that Acts 1 is the introduction to Acts 2.

Nobody was talking about Darby and dispensationlism here, so plesse don't confuse the issue. The discussion as I understood it was about does Israel as a nation still have a place in God's plan. You don't have to be a Darby dispensationlist to think they do.

About God not being a respecter of person, that is not strictly true is it? He does respect certain nations and in particular He chose Israel above all nations of the earth. Individuals may be not, but nations certainly He did choose between.

RE: ///Nobody was talking about Darby and dispensationlism here, so plesse don't confuse the issue. The discussion as I understood it was about does Israel as a nation still have a place in God's plan. You don't have to be a Darby dispensationlist to think they do.///

I think that this is indeed the heart of the issue, Why we interput the Scripture the way that we do.

My research thus far seems to conclude that Justin Martyr
believed that it is the Christians that shall inherit the holy land.

add: I do not think Justin Martyr was a Christian zionist. (I am finding just the opposite) I am not finding that any of the pre-nicene fathers where Christian zionist

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR
DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO :
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

It does not help to use labels such as 'Christian Zionist' and 'Dispensationlist'. It just puts people into boxes as if one catorgorise all their views, when all they are seeking to do is consider what is truth. I don't consider myself either of these, but they can mean different things to different people.

No one has suggested an answer to for why Jesus replied to the disciples the way He did in Acts 1 when He said "it is not for you to know the times or season" when God will restore the kingdom to Israel.
I thought PP originally suggested that Jesus did not say this at the point of His ascension, but then then said he did not say this, anyway that is clearly not correct, so that leaves the question open?

Julias, I will come back to you later with the many scriptures that say Israel has a future, when I have time to do this.

Heydave wrote : RE: ///No one has suggested an answer to for why Jesus replied to the disciples the way He did in Acts 1 when He said "it is not for you to know the times or season" when God will restore the kingdom to Israel.
I thought PP originally suggested that Jesus did not say this at the point of His ascension, but then then said he did not say this, anyway that is clearly not correct, so that leaves the question open?///

PP wrote : RE: ///The question is not being asked in Acts 1. Luke is simply recalling how the question was asked of Jesus in the past. The context is that it is part of Lukes introduction for what is fixing to take place in chapter 2///

What I was trying to say was that Acts 1 is the indroduction for Acts 2.
Luke is recalling past conversations that occured before and after the Ascension acts ch 1 1-11

Acts Chapter 1 Verses 4 and 5 are fulfilled in Acts 2.

And with that in mind I posted Both what Wesely and Peoples said about verse 6 :

Wesley's Notes for Acts 1:6
1:6 Dost thou at this time - At the time thou now speakest of? not many days hence? restore the kingdom to Israel? - They still seemed to dream of an outward, temporal kingdom, in which the Jews should have dominion over all nations. It seems they came in a body, having before concerted the design, to ask when this kingdom would come.

People's Bible Notes for Acts 1:6
Ac 1:6 Wilt thou at this time, etc.? They still held to their old ideas of a worldly restoration of the kingdom of Israel. Their only question was, "Wilt thou restore it 'now'"? After the Holy Spirit was given, this delusion was dismissed, and they understood that Christ's kingdom is not of this world.

Do you understand my point ?

add : "Wilt thou restore it 'now'"? After the Holy Spirit was given, ((Acts 2)) this delusion was dismissed, and they understood that Christ's kingdom is not of this world." :

|
ACTS 1:6-7.
"Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
"And He (JESUS)said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority."

I find this very interesting question and answer. The disciples who had been with Jesus every day for 3.5 years still seemed to have the understanding that the Kingdom would at some point be restored to Israel. You would have thought that if this major prophetic plan that was the foundation of the Jewish nation for years had been changed then Jesus would have made that very clear to them during those years. Even more, here was the ideal opportunity for Jesus to correct their thinking about it, but instead He just says in essence, 'It's not for you to know when this will happen'.

Clearly, if you or I were one of those Jewish disciples there on that day, we would have not taken it any other way than He meant it WOULD happen sometime in God's timing!

Where did Jesus ever state that all those many, many prophecies in the OT that speak clearly of a future earthy Kingdom of Israel were now redundant? I don't know anywhere.

It seems to me that if God spoke in times past and said that certain things would come to pass and they don't, it is a slur on God's integrity. He would be saying in effect 'I've changed my mind' or 'well, it did not quite work out as I said it would'. I don't believe this is right.

Regarding the early church, it is incorrect to say they did not believe in a millennium kingdom on earth. The early Church Fathers did believe in a millennium Kingdom. This view only changed later when the church had drifted away from it's roots. The accepted view of the pre-nicene church fathers was pre-millennial.
For example: Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) in his Dialogue With Trypho c. AD 140, made the following premillennial statement: "But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then he built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare."

and also this.... "And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue, chapter 81).

Irenaeus (AD160-230) was a disciple of Polycarp who knew the Apostle John said "John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the first 'resurrection of the just,' and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth, and what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonize [with his vision]." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, chapter 36, paragraph 3).

Doc: I believe as you do above. In your opinion, why do you think or not think it will be nullifying the one new man in Christ if Israel becomes a priestly nation of servants and is given a position of headship over the other nations. I've been very curious about this notion for a long while. If someone were to tell you that Israel becoming the head cannot happen because there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ and if they become head that is building a wall of partition again what would be your reply to this statement? It's an honest inquiry by me.

You wrote,

"I believe the scriptures teach that God has completed His work with Israel as a physical nation on earth."

Where do you think Christ will return to when He returns? When His feet touch down on real terra firma earth soil again where do you think this might be?

You nailed it Julius.

If Jesus is going to reign a literal 1000 years in Jerusalem, when are the new heavens and new earth going to be created?

David wrote:
"My question is, if the millennium will indeed exist then how would that be setting up walls of partition again and nullifying the one new man in Christ? I don't buy that it will because there is no unrighteousness in God. The restoration of the remnant of the natural branches, in Christ and within specified geographical borders, is portrayed as an event that will be life from the dead whose blessings stagger the imagination even now and was part of the orginal promises and covenants made to Israel."

In short, David you are on the right path.

I must first set a thought of what Peter said of Paul's wisdom....

2Pe 3:15
and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation””as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,

2Pe 3:16
as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter teaches us to carefully consider what Paul is revealing to us in his epistles, for there will be those who "twist" the Scriptures. Peter clearly exhorts us to carefully consider what Paul teaches because there are "some things hard to understand". So with that though in mind...let us consider Paul's teaching in Galatians 4.

Gal 4:26
but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Gal 4:27
For it is written:

"Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”fn

Paul mentions "the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all." And then Paul selects a Scripture found in Isaiah 54 to be commentary on what he is trying to teach the Galatians.

So what precept do we find in Isaiah 54 that serves as commentary in Galatians 4? And what do we find considering God's promise to the nation of Israel?

Heydave wrote :/// It does not help to use labels such as 'Christian Zionist' and 'Dispensationlist'. It just puts people into boxes as if one catorgorise all their views, when all they are seeking to do is consider what is truth. I don't consider myself either of these, but they can mean different things to different people.///

I used those terms to try and clear up a misunderstanding on your part.
You posted some quotes from Justin Martyr as proof that I had given a false impression (which I do not feel that I did)

you wrote:
RE: ///"Proudpapa, you gave me the impression that you were making a case that ' most early christians did not believe in an earthly kingdom for Isreal'(((implying Israel as a race))) and that it was just a recent thing. I showed this was not the case. The reformers, Anabaptist, etc, were not early Christians, certainly when compared to the pre-nicene church Fathers. They are 1200 years after them!"///

You did not show that this was not the case.

You used the Quotes of Justin Martyr out of context.
Justin was a chiliast : he did believe that Christ would return and reign a thousand years on earth from Jeruselum but with the Christians and patriarchs not with the Jews.

Justin was clearly a strong supersessionist!

There is no substantial evidence that any of the early church fathers believed that physical Israel (((Israel as a race))) playes any significant role in prophecy.

I would encourage everyone to read :
ST. JUSTIN MARTYR
DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO :
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

You wrote,

"In the book of Revelation there is no mention of a rapture, nor any mention of a seven year tribulation, and even the scriptures on Christ's return to earth are very general and provide little detail. But they do provide assurance for Christians."

If you had asked the early church and the original 12 apostles where Christ would return to do you think they would have replied we have very little details about this and therefore do not know?

Also,

"I fear that once again, just as with the earthly minded Jews looking for a political and militaristic Messiah that would vanquish all their foes, an earthly minded church is looking also for the same kind of Messiah."

I don't believe that is so. All streams of theology look for a risen and glorified Savior to return to earth, I believe to the place from whence He ascended. We do not look for a militaristic figure but one who will put an end to war as the nations beat their swords into plowhares.

Could not His words, "My kingdom is not of this world" be a reference to the fact that His kingdom does not operate by the same power and principles as this world system does. Could it be that it has its origins in heaven but will eventually be played out on this earth without becoming as the wordly kingdoms? The earth and its blessedness was part of the Hebrew concept of reality and was the place where the kingdom of God would eventually be lived out.

Back to my original question - if Israel is to obtain a special significance in the nations by the return of its long absent Messiah how would this be disrupting the one new man in Christ and erecting walls of partition again between Jew and Gentile? God is no repsecter of persons it is said but is it true to say that if this happens then it is an automatic sign God is respecting persons and nations over others? If so, why?

You wrote and asked,

"Am I understanding you correctly ? are you of the understanding that verse 26 and 27 of Ezekiel chapter 36 is fulfilled through Christ in this present dispensation but believe that there is a dispensational gap between versus 27 and 28, In which verse 28 : "You will live on the land that I gave to your forefathers" will not be fulfilled untill the millennial dispensation?"

24 For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land.

25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.

26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

28 You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.

I see verses 27 and 28, as well as verses 24-27, as being part of the millennial scenario. Verse 24 mentions return from the nations where the nation has been in exile and them ciomes the placing of God's Spirit within them as they obediently live on the land given to their forefathers. The new birth, the placing of the Spirit with, will give them the moral ability to live obediently on the land.

One major thing though. The gospel and the ministry of Christ revealed and brought to light a mystery not previously revealed. That being the fact the Christ unexpecetly brought the powers of the age to come into this age BEFORE the day of the Lord. The day of the Lord was commonly seen in Jewish thought as the time when the wicked would be purged from the nation and Israel's eschatological enemies finally vanquished by the appearance of the Messiah. Then the Spirit was supposed to be poured out on all mankind. But Christ unexpecetdly brough the pouring out of the Spirit into this age before the next age began (see Hebrews 6:5). We have already tasted of the powers of the age to come. But that doesn't mean the Spirit will not be poured out in the age to come. There is presetnly a overlapping of the ages so to speak. What is coming in its fullness in the next age is already here in its infancy intis age. We haven't seen anything yet! But we and Israel will see it and the rmnant of Israel will live obediently in the land given to their forefathers just as He promised Abraham in the beginning.

How this will disrupt the one new man is Christ is still beyond me. That is my question and thought. Can't God have respect for His original Abrahamic promisers without being labelled a respecter of persons? Following that train of thought, He was a respecter of persons in choosing Abraham over other men. Wasn't He then obligated to do for every man what He had done for Abraham? Where does it say the sovereign God is obligated to treat all nations the same? That's not being a hard pro Israel zealot. It's just asking a logical question. If God chose Israel to have a place of distinction and honor among nations does that automaticaly obligate God to do the same for every nation? What if this nation is to be a servant nation that does not lord it over the nations as they have in this age but is a servant nation that is a vessel to pour forth immense blessings to the rest of the earth? How is that erecting a wall of partition again and making God a respecter of persons?

Here just a few of many scripture prophecies regarding Israel’s promised future inheritance.

Jeremiah 33:24
"Have you not considered what these people have spoken, saying, ‘The two families which the LORD has chosen, He has also cast them off’? Thus they have despised My people, as if they should no more be a nation before them.”

Which people today say this (that Israel should no longer a nation)? Is it not Islam the enemy of God? Why would Christian’s align themselves with such an anti-Christ spirit??

Jeremiah 33:25-26
"Thus says the LORD: ‘If My covenant is not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth,
‘then I will cast away the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, so that I will not take any of his descendants to be rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will cause their captives to return, and will have mercy on them.’”‰”

So until day and night cease to exist, God said He will not cast away the descendants of Jacob.

Jeremiah 16:14-16
"Therefore behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD, "that it shall no more be said, ‘The LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt,’
"but, ‘The LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north and from all the lands where He had driven them.’ For I will bring them back into their land which I gave to their fathers.”

Note: They will come back from ALL the lands where they had been driven. This has not been fulfilled before.

Jeremiah 30:1
"For behold, the days are coming,’ says the LORD, ‘that I will bring back from captivity My people Israel and Judah,’ says the LORD. ‘And I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it.’”‰”

Context here is the time of Jacob’s trouble (the tribulation).

Jeremiah 31:8-10
"Behold, I will bring them from the north country,
And gather them from the ends of the earth,
Among them the blind and the lame,
The woman with child
And the one who labors with child, together;

A great throng shall return there.
They shall come with weeping,
And with supplications I will lead them.
I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters,
In a straight way in which they shall not stumble;
For I am a Father to Israel,
And Ephraim is My firstborn.

"Hear the word of the LORD, O nations,
And declare it in the isles afar off, and say,
‘He who scattered Israel will gather him,
And keep him as a shepherd does his flock.”
When were Israel scattered to the ends of the earth? Only in AD70 by the Romans. Only in the last century have they been gathered back into the land. God’s word is true and does not fail.

Zehariah 12:9-10
"It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
"And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced.

"Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn."

This is one of the most wonderful prophecies of the Jews recognising their Messiah, Jesus. When has this ever been fulfilled that ALL the nations that came against Jerusalem were destroyed? When have Israel as a nation looked upon Him how was pierced and grieved?

Are we to dismiss all these passages as not literal? If so, we might as well dismiss the whole bible as mythological! If Jeus fulfilled all the prophecies exactly concerning His first coming, surely all the prophecies related to His second coming will be fulfilled literally.

Julias,

So what you seems to be saying is that any future prophecy or scripture that talks about the future is an analogy and not to be taken literally? I will just agree to strongly disagree with this assumption. Jesus fulfilled literally what was prophesied about Him. I'm sure there were Rabbis when He came who considered the prophecies as just analogical. Just as well the wise men from the east took it literally! :)

It explicitly says a number of times (as you quoted) in Revelation that there is a 1000 year period AFTER Christ returns and BEFORE the new heaven and earth. I don't have the liberty of deciding that this does not mean what is clearly says and it means something different. 1000 years is a millennium is it not? If it is not to be taken literally, then neither is any of the other detail in that passage to be taken literally. So the Devil (if he is real that is, or maybe just a metaphor for evil) is not cast into the bottomless pit. Do we really reign with Christ (for 1000 years) and act as priests unto God? Are these all just analogies?? Where do you stop at deciding what is actual and what is metaphor? I would suggest it is a dangerous game to play.

REW: ///I see verses 27 and 28, as well as verses 24-27, as being part of the millennial scenario. Verse 24 mentions return from the nations where the nation has been in exile and them ciomes the placing of God's Spirit within them as they obediently live on the land given to their forefathers. The new birth, the placing of the Spirit with, will give them the moral ability to live obediently on the land.///

It would appear to me that Ezekiel chapter 36
24-27 has been fulfilled.

Ezekiel 36 : 24 "For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land."

Acts 2:5 "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven."
----
Ezekiel 36 : 25 "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you."

Hebrews 10:22 : Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
---
Ezekiel 36 : 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

2 Corinthians 3:3
Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Hebrews 10:16
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
---
Ezekiel 36 : 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Acts 2
---
Ezekiel 36 : 28 You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.

Hebrews 12:22
But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels

As far as trying to make a case that God is obligated after the second advent to further fullfill the promises to the natural seed of Israel than what He already Has, I am not persuaded that the Bible teaches that. And neither was the Church for more than 1,000 years of its existence.

Paul would say:
..., Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin

RE: ///It is paramount that Jesus remains at the Highest place!///

Very good, the new man has one body and one head from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together.

Or is it the replacement theology that is counterfeit deception of Satan.

Think prayerfully about it, let everyone read their bible personally and don't be lost or be deceived in the convolution of words and insertions of doctrinal presumptions in the integrity of the word and promises of God.

If God had dealt thus with the physical nation of Israel then the gentile church would have been cast out long ago because of sin. Thankfully, it is the grace and integrity of God that keeps all the branches alive and not the doctrines of man.

Jeremiah 31:35-37

35 Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name:

36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

37 Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord.

Zechariah 14:1-4

14 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

This did not happen in 70 AD unless one is reading it in the light of some doctrinal presumptions.

Indeed there is one spiritual church which the apostle Paul described having the natural and wild branches:

Romans 11:17-18 " But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root3 of the olive tree,

Do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you".

Many things you have said were true but you have gone overboard with these daring statements:

1. I believe the scriptures teach that God has completed His work with Israel as a physical nation on earth. Previously, I listed many verses where God had fulfilled all His promises to Israel.

2. For God to restore physical Israel, He would have to go against much of what He said in the Scriptures.

What is that to you if God restore again the ancient land of Israel in the fulfillment of His words, for the sake of their forefathers, perhaps for their last chance to repent.

Here are my thoughts - would love to hear your views on them:

1. I believe Romans 11:26 ("and in this way all Israel will be saved...") merits some attention because it is regularly brought up in eschatological discussions concerning Israel.

My belief is that "all Israel" in this verse refers to spiritual Israel, which would concur with the earlier passages in Romans 11.

Some have adopted a different interpretation, arguing that this verse implies all ethnic Jews would be saved, but I believe such an interpretation would not be consistent with John 5:43 ("if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him" - a prophetic allusion to the antichrist), as well as verses such as Matthew 24:15-22 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

2. The promise that God extended to Abraham's descendants concerning the land of Israel was unconditional.

The question is then - who are Abraham's descendants? In John 8 and Romans 9, it is made clear that the children of Abraham and those who are in Jesus Christ. Christians are the real Jews (Romans 2:28-29).

Hence my take on this issue is that the land of Israel has been given to Christians by God through Abraham. But we do not have the prerogative to take the land by force - there is no need for that, because Christ will reclaim the land for Himself. This especially makes sense if you believe that the 1000-year reign of Jesus Christ on earth would be fulfilled literally.

3. Incidentally - lest such a belief contribute to antisemitic attitudes, Paul explicitly warns against that in Romans 11 (c.f. cultivated olive tree v.s. wild olive tree). He deftly discusses both ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel, their importance to God, and their respective roles in His plan for the future. Don't forget that Jesus is a Jew, and He's the firstborn among many brethren.

These theological perspectives do not directly tell us whether we should support a pro-Israel foreign policy. Neither do they tell us whether a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestianian conflict should be pursued. However, these political considerations are of earthly matters, and hence not significant from the broader, spiritual perspective. We can be sure that there can be no lasting peace in Israel until Jesus reigns.

Julius21, I was tracking with you and saying amen all the way up until you stated that the new heavens and new earth are spiritual and not literal. I've never heard of that interpretation before. So I felt led to ask you out of curiosity, how would you reconcile that interpretation with this passage from 2 Peter 3 which seems to clearly teach that the present heavens and earth will be physically dissolved with fire and that there will be a new physical heavens and earth to replace this one:

"9 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. 14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless"

I also think about our Lord declaring that the meek will inherit the earth.

Regarding Revelation 21-22, I know Revelation is full of symbolism, therefore I'd say that the measurements of the New Jerusalem are not to be taken literally. In fact I also know that this City mentioned there is not a literal city but is in fact a symbolic depiction of the Bride of Christ (Rev.21:9-27 clearly shows this imo). That said, I also cannot get away from a literal physical new heavens and new earth based on other, non-symbolic scriptures.

But don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you on the spiritual Jerusalem from above, as that is a crystal clear teaching in God's Word.

Btw, in case anyone is interested, Tim Conway (a featured preacher here on SI) has recently been doing a series on end times which I believe is excellent. So far he has 8 messages completed from the series. In general I would recommend starting with the 2nd one, as the first one is an intro that can be confusing to some since he deals with all kinds of issues in one short message. Here's the link to them:

(Look for the ones that have (Part..) at the end of the title)
http://illbehonest.com/topic/end-times

Not all that was promised to Abraham was spiritual:

Genesis 15:12-21

As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”

When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”

This is our new place in the future, for all the earth shall be dissolved.

2 Peter 3:12-13

As you look forward to and hasten the coming of the day of God, when the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved and the elements will melt with fire. But in keeping with his promise, we are looking forward to new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home.

Thanks for the reply Julius21. Interesting. I guess I haven't looked that much into the preterist or partial preterist views, hence I was a bit surprised by that interpretation. I understand that that full/hyper preterism is completely heretical as it denies the physical resurrection of believers and the literal Second Coming of Christ.

So let me get this straight, in your view, when Christ comes back He will utterly destroy this earth, judge the wicked and cast them into hell forever, and will raise believers from their graves and give them new physical bodies, and then take them back to heaven?

you wrote:

Since all Abrahamic promises are fulfilled in Christ, I don't see the point in a new earth.

Julius,

You know, we have agreed on many things on this forum, but I have to say the things you have stated on this topic leave me perplexed. I cannot see how you can honestly interpret scripture the way you do.

You state that if God was to restore Israel as an earthly nation, He would go against much of His word. In fact the opposite is true! If God does not keep to the promises such as has been shown in Jeremiah 31:35-37 and others then He would contradict His word. You have given no answer of how to reconcile that. Also still have not heard any explanation on the Acts 1 passage where Jesus does implies that the Kingdom will be restored to Israel in God's timing.

More concerning is how you spiritualise every passage that predicts any future physical event. This would include basic truths such as New heaven and earth, a rapture (saints being caught up to God) of any description, a tribulation period. All of which are clearly stated in the scriptures many times. It makes me wonder if you believe that Jesus will actually physically return to earth again as the scriptures teach or do you spiritualise that?

You boldly state that all future prophetic events have been fulfilled. But what you mean is that you have changed the meaning to make it spiritual and not an actual real earthly event. For example the Zechariah 14:1-4. There is no historical basis for this way of interpretation. In mean look at all the prophecies regarding Jesus' first coming that were all fulfilled literally. Where He was born, where He grew up, what tribe He was from, how He died, His betrayal, etc, etc (I could go on and on). This all actually happened. Jesus' prediction of Jerusalem being destroyed by the Romans in AD70 was literally fulfilled. Why now is it that all future prophecy is dismissed as not 'really going to happen' and it has been 'fulfilled spiritually. Of course there is a spiritual truth that applies to Christ and the church in all scripture, but that does not mean that it does not also have an actual fulfilment as well. It is both. Did the Israel cross the Jordan and enter the promised land? However it also speak of a spiritual reality to us who enter into the heavenly rest. But that does not mean it was not also a real life event for Israel (unless you don't believe that either).

Heydave wrote

If God does not keep to the promises such as has been shown in Jeremiah 31:35-37

Is the 'Day of the Lord' before or after the millennium ?

One major thing though. The gospel and the ministry of Christ revealed and brought to light a mystery not previously revealed. That being the fact the Christ unexpecetly brought the powers of the age to come into this age BEFORE the day of the Lord. The day of the Lord was commonly seen in Jewish thought as the time when the wicked would be purged from the nation and Israel's eschatological enemies finally vanquished by the appearance of the Messiah. Then the Spirit was supposed to be poured out on all mankind. But Christ unexpecetdly brough the pouring out of the Spirit into this age before the next age began (see Hebrews 6:5). We have already tasted of the powers of the age to come. But that doesn't mean the Spirit will not be poured out in the age to come.

Are you implying that you believe that "The day of the Lord" is the beginning of the millennium ?

What difference will it make when Christ returns to Isarel and Jersualme from whence He ascended" Where do you believe Christ will return to? It's He that promised to return to the place and nation .

I always thought of the Day of the Lord as a global event that : will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.